ChatterBank8 mins ago
An Englishman Speaks Up For Freedom Of Speech In America
Answers
Good God AH, did a large bill just land on your doorstep? You sure do seem very grumpy. Thanks for sharing Khando its very interesting, more people need to stand up to those that wish to cancel others. Eh AH?
11:29 Tue 13th Jul 2021
Freedom of speech means the right to say whatever you like. It requires the speaker to accept responsibility for any stated opinion or telling of events. The laws for slander and libel have been in place for centuries, but some would restrict our right to mock the pompous, expose the corrupt, or highlight the hypocrite if it suits their own secret agenda.
In the US, the First Amendment he's so busy pushing is specifically a protection against impingements of freedom of speech from Congress (and, by extension, anything else that represents the US Government or State Governments). And even in that case, it's not an absolute right, because, for example (see City of Chicago v. Alexander, 2014), "The First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired."
It's also clear that just because you have a right to insult somebody, doesn't mean you have a duty to. Calling officials of a school "Benito Mussolini", and shouting at them, may or may not be a protected Amendment right, but it's basic decency to find a better way to put your point across.
Or, put another way, if the best you can say about your argument is that it isn't literally illegal, then you need a better argument.
It's also clear that just because you have a right to insult somebody, doesn't mean you have a duty to. Calling officials of a school "Benito Mussolini", and shouting at them, may or may not be a protected Amendment right, but it's basic decency to find a better way to put your point across.
Or, put another way, if the best you can say about your argument is that it isn't literally illegal, then you need a better argument.
Mamya provided a link earlier, although the problem is that what seems to have been "cancelled" in this case are certain comments in long meetings from March and May, in videos that are at least an hour long.
As to the law: the School probably counts as a public service, so it has to be very careful about what, if anything, it censors. Still, I don't think it is unreasonable for a school to argue that if it offers people the chance to speak, then objects when they use it as an excuse to slander the officials, that the school might want to take that offer away (perhaps in favour of, for example, inviting a strongly-worded letter so that the person can still make their point without making a scene, ensuring that the person can still be heard, just not there and then).
As to the law: the School probably counts as a public service, so it has to be very careful about what, if anything, it censors. Still, I don't think it is unreasonable for a school to argue that if it offers people the chance to speak, then objects when they use it as an excuse to slander the officials, that the school might want to take that offer away (perhaps in favour of, for example, inviting a strongly-worded letter so that the person can still make their point without making a scene, ensuring that the person can still be heard, just not there and then).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.